Pets Vs. Landlords

reddeerpropertyrentals

Published

7 years ago

4 minute read

Pet ownership in Red Deer is very popular, however, in rental properties it can be a real area of contention between Landlords and Tenants.

First let’s examine what is meant by a no pets clause in a lease, because a lot of tenants think that it simply means no cats or dogs…so they bring in a caged animal like a rabbit or Hamster, Turtle, Snake, Bird or Fish.

Different landlords will look at these other pets with varying degrees of concern but the safest bet is to assume No pets, means No Pets.

As a property manager with a lot of years in the business I have had large aquariums leak while tenants were away on vacation causing substantial damage to the property, including the dead rotten fish. And we have had small animals escape their cage and chew carpet and electrical wires that caused a fire.

…and more than a few times the tenant did not have insurance to cover the damages.

Next, you have tenants that take on babysitting of pets for others, sometimes this babysitting becomes longer term.

Unfortunately, the length of time the pet is in the house is irrelevant, for most landlords, No Pets means No Pets, not even temporarily. Some landlords even object to pets visiting for a few hours occasionally.

We have had a tenant get a dog due to security concerns, sorry but a security scare does not give you the right to suddenly get a dog. NO Pets means NO Pets, not for security, companionship or any other reason. You can get a security system if you feel the need, wireless please.

This is not to say that all landlords are ruthless tyrants, many will allow for small caged animals or fish, but if your lease has a No pets clause in it, make sure that you get written approval first or you are in breach of your lease and can be evicted over this issue.

In Alberta landlords, can charge a non-refundable pet fee, it can be anything that they want, may be a onetime fee or it may be a monthly fee. Some provinces do not allow landlords to ban pets such as Ontario, but Alberta does until the Tenancy act that governs Residential tenacities changes.

Why do Landlords have such an aversion to allowing pets:

First is damage to the property. While 99% of pet owners are great, it is the 1% that can cause a lot of grief, I have had firsthand experience where a single cat has caused damage to an entire home in carpet repairs due to clawing and peeing, damages that far exceeded the security deposit that was held.

Housebreaking new pets can result in lots of damage until the pet is trained.

Second, sometimes future tenants are allergic to animals. We have lost many potential tenants simply because the moment the prospective tenant walked into the home they started to get stuffy as they were extremely sensitive to the pets that were in prior, it can take a lot of extra specialized cleaning to remedy a house allergen free, it is just easier to not go there in the first place.

Finally, in multi-family such as apartments and townhomes, nothing drives neighbours crazy like a dog barking next door all day long at every slight sound.

For most landlords the risk of the 1% out ways the desire of the 99%

Red Deer Property Rentals is Central Alberta’s Upscale Rental Home Agency. CLICK HERE to check out our website for your next quality rental home.

Les Brown

Up Next

RDC’s Career Fair features many employers – from Canadian Army to 2019 Canada Winter Games

Don't Miss

See Mickey and Sebastian from HGTV’s ‘Worst to First’ at the Red Deer Home Show!

reddeerpropertyrentals

www.reddeerpropertyrentals.com

Follow Author

Pets Vs. Landlords

Local Business / 8 years ago

Spring Rental Market is Here!

Community / 8 years ago

Why You Need Tenant Insurance

Business

Worst kept secret—red tape strangling Canada’s economy

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew Lau

In the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S.

According to a new Statistics Canada report, government regulation has grown over the years and it’s hurting Canada’s economy. The report, which uses a regulatory burden measure devised by KPMG and Transport Canada, shows government regulatory requirements increased 2.1 per cent annually from 2006 to 2021, with the effect of reducing the business sector’s GDP, employment, labour productivity and investment.

Specifically, the growth in regulation over these years cut business-sector investment by an estimated nine per cent and “reduced business start-ups and business dynamism,” cut GDP in the business sector by 1.7 percentage points, cut employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points.

While the report only covered regulatory growth through 2021, in the past four years an avalanche of new regulations has made the already existing problem of overregulation worse.

The Trudeau government in particular has intensified its regulatory assault on the extraction sector with a greenhouse gas emissions cap, new fuel regulations and new methane emissions regulations. In the last few years, federal diktats and expansions of bureaucratic control have swept the auto industry, child care, supermarkets and many other sectors.

Again, the negative results are evident. Over the past nine years, Canada’s cumulative real growth in per-person GDP (an indicator of incomes and living standards) has been a paltry 1.7 per cent and trending downward, compared to 18.6 per cent and trending upward in the United States. Put differently, if the Canadian economy had tracked with the U.S. economy over the past nine years, average incomes in Canada would be much higher today.

Also in the past nine years, business investment in Canada has fallen while increasing more than 30 per cent in the U.S. on a real per-person basis. Workers in Canada now receive barely half as much new capital per worker than in the U.S., and only about two-thirds as much new capital (on average) as workers in other developed countries.

Consequently, Canada is mired in an economic growth crisis—a fact that even the Trudeau government does not deny. “We have more work to do,” said Anita Anand, then-president of the Treasury Board, last August, “to examine the causes of low productivity levels.” The Statistics Canada report, if nothing else, confirms what economists and the business community already knew—the regulatory burden is much of the problem.

Of course, regulation is not the only factor hurting Canada’s economy. Higher federal carbon taxes, higher payroll taxes and higher top marginal income tax rates are also weakening Canada’s productivity, GDP, business investment and entrepreneurship.

Finally, while the Statistics Canada report shows significant economic costs of regulation, the authors note that their estimate of the effect of regulatory accumulation on GDP is “much smaller” than the effect estimated in an American study published several years ago in the Review of Economic Dynamics. In other words, the negative effects of regulation in Canada may be even higher than StatsCan suggests.

Whether Statistics Canada has underestimated the economic costs of regulation or not, one thing is clear: reducing regulation and reversing the policy course of recent years would help get Canada out of its current economic rut. The country is effectively in a recession even if, as a result of rapid population growth fuelled by record levels of immigration, the GDP statistics do not meet the technical definition of a recession.

With dismal GDP and business investment numbers, a turnaround—both in policy and outcomes—can’t come quickly enough for Canadians.

Matthew Lau

Adjunct Scholar, Fraser Institute

Business

‘Out and out fraud’: DOGE questions $2 billion Biden grant to left-wing ‘green energy’ nonprofit`

Published on February 22, 2025

Todayville

From LifeSiteNews

By Calvin Freiburger

The EPA under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a ‘green energy’ group that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) under the Biden administration awarded $2 billion to a “green energy” nonprofit that appears to have been little more than a means to enrich left-wing activists such as former Democratic candidate Stacey Abrams.

Founded in 2023 as a coalition of nonprofits, corporations, unions, municipalities, and other groups, Power Forward Communities (PFC) bills itself as “the first national program to finance home energy efficiency upgrades at scale, saving Americans thousands of dollars on their utility bills every year.” It says it “will help homeowners, developers, and renters swap outdated, inefficient appliances with more efficient and modernized options, saving money for years ahead and ensuring our kids can grow up with cleaner, pollutant-free air.”

The organization’s website boasts more than 300 member organizations across 46 states but does not detail actual activities. It does have job postings for three open positions and a form for people to sign up for more information.

The Washington Free Beacon reported that the Trump administration’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) project, along with new EPA administrator Lee Zeldin, are raising questions about the $2 billion grant PFC received from the Biden EPA’s National Clean Investment Fund (NCIF), ostensibly for the “affordable decarbonization of homes and apartments throughout the country, with a particular focus on low-income and disadvantaged communities.”

PFC’s announcement of the grant is the organization’s only press release to date and is alarming given that the organization had somehow reported only $100 in revenue at the end of 2023.

“I made a commitment to members of Congress and to the American people to be a good steward of tax dollars and I’ve wasted no time in keeping my word,” Zeldin said. “When we learned about the Biden administration’s scheme to quickly park $20 billion outside the agency, we suspected that some organizations were created out of thin air just to take advantage of this.” Zeldin previously announced the Biden EPA had deposited the $20 billion in a Citibank account, apparently to make it harder for the next administration to retrieve and review it.

“As we continue to learn more about where some of this money went, it is even more apparent how far-reaching and widely accepted this waste and abuse has been,” he added. “It’s extremely concerning that an organization that reported just $100 in revenue in 2023 was chosen to receive $2 billion. That’s 20 million times the organization’s reported revenue.”

Daniel Turner, executive director of energy advocacy group Power the Future, told the Beacon that in his opinion “for an organization that has no experience in this, that was literally just established, and had $100 in the bank to receive a $2 billion grant — it doesn’t just fly in the face of common sense, it’s out and out fraud.”

Prominent among PFC’s insiders is Abrams, the former Georgia House minority leader best known for persistent false claims about having the state’s gubernatorial election stolen from her in 2018. Abrams founded two of PFC’s partner organizations (Southern Economic Advancement Project and Fair Count) and serves as lead counsel for a third group (Rewiring America) in the coalition. A longtime advocate of left-wing environmental policies, Abrams is also a member of the national advisory board for advocacy group Climate Power.